9/11 Commission transcripts finally ready

[paulthompson]

Looks like the transcripts to the first two 9/11 hearings are finally online:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/index.htm

[Sliverofhope]

1. No, even more!

There's one for the third hearing as well? Are they putting them all up gradually?

[Sliverofhope]

2. Hmm... just skimming the first transcript

it looks like all bullshite and rhetoric, except for a addition from an audience member. Yawn.

[paulthompson]

3. BS

Most of it I won't even bother reading. The interesting part in my opinion is the testimonies of Jane Garvey, Norman Mineta, and the NORAD guys, esp. the question and answer sessions. Count for instance, how many times Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, says she doesn't know anything in response to questions to her.

I wrote an essay about NORAD and their testimony, which can be found here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

An interesting follow up is that apparently there has been no followup. The commission specifically asked NORAD for follow up answers to written questions within several weeks, and NORAD said yes they could do that, as you can see in the transcripts. Yet, according to an article from a day or two ago, they have flatly failed to respond.

Cover up, anyone? (That's a no-brainer!)

[RH]

4. How?

Could at least some of the 9/11 attacks have been stopped if the US air defense system had reacted faster?

You tell me.

How?

Were they seriously supposed to shoot down passenger planes with civilians on board, at a moments notice?

Where was the precendent for that?

And to what extent therefore should anybody have been familar with an appropriate procedure?

And to what extent is anybody sure that one or more of the planes was not shot down?

A possible reason to cover up would be that one or more of the planes was shot down by a cowboy without authority.

Possible scenario for instance:

As a result of a complete cock up Flight 77, while returning peacefully enough to DCA, was chased by a trigger happy patriotic maniac in the front seat of a C130
On Board AA77 Barbara Olsen asks "What do I tell the pilot to do?"
She is immediately advised to divert, to fly low over the Pentagon; no military plane, no matter how crazy, would ever shoot at Rumsfeld and the situation would then at least be visible beyond doubt.
Unfortunately, the B757 fails to get that far and nobody cottoned on to the aforesaid reality so hubby, if only to have a quiet time with his grief, thinks it best not to tell the whole story.

Do any of the known facts blatently fail to fit with this?

[paulthompson]

5. Reply

RH (or Ron, if that's your name),

I know its probably futile to try to convince you of this, but I'll fall for the bait anyways.

"Were they seriously supposed to shoot down passenger planes with civilians on board, at a moments notice?"

This sentence is so deliberately misleading, or ignorant! There was no "moments notice." There would have been plenty of time for 3 of the 4 hijacked planes to have been closely approached by fighters and for the fighter to go through the standard procedures of making eye contact with the pilot, tipping one's wings, and so forth, before making a call to shoot down or not.

Do some simple math. The crisis with the flight controllers began by 8:20. First plane crashed at 8:46. Last one at 10:06. Fighter planes are supposed be able to scramble within 15 minutes in any circumstance. Standard procedure should have gone out the window after 8:46, and a lot could have been done in the next hour and twenty minutes. For the last two flights, they were known to be hijacked for an hour or so and still supposedly they weren't shot down. To shoot down Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon wouldn't have been a scandal at all. In fact, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta claims that he was under the impression that Dick Cheney had given that very order. The problem was there were no planes nearby to execute the order. And everyone agrees the order was given to shoot down Flight 93.

The failure to scramble fighters in time to at least give the option to shoot down planes like Flight 77 or not should be scandalous. The exact timing isn't known, but it took something like an hour and a half to scramble fighters to defend Air Force One, well after the emergency situation was known. This is typical of wildly off response times and the failure of normal procedures.

Even a 9/11 "debunker" such as yourself should have a problem with that. NORAD, after proudly defending it's 9/11 record all this time, finally in May pleaded complete incompetence, claiming that they were but a "vestige" of the Cold War air defenses. They also conceeded that it was possible to have shot down Flight 77.

There's no longer a dispute if the response was incompetence, since NORAD itself doesn't dispute that. The only questions now is if incompetence explains it all, or if there was an LIHOP.

Read the essay I wrote in the link above.

[RH]

6. Missed the point.

Your sophistry simply contrives to miss the point.

"at a moments notice" is not a dispute of the secondary matter of the logictics of interception. The question is rather of how the decision would come about.

Before making such a terminal decision I would want to be sure, at least, of any information available.

Without the benefit of hindsight it would seem to have been the case for instance that the disposition of flight 77 was far from clear.

Towards what therefore should the benefit of any doubt have fallen?

I would also have wished to be sure that any interception would not make matters worse. It is not usually wise to rush towards anybody possessed of a loaded weapon, nor would it be wise to do anything jerky.

Indeed, I have suspected that the C130 that pursued the B757 into the Pentagon did, so to speak, do something jerky, and possibly without the proper superior authority.

[skypilot]

7. Missed the point?

"Before making such a terminal decision I would want to be sure, at least, of any information available."

RH, your points are easy to miss--whatever they are. I don't know how much more "information" was needed after ascertaining that BOTH World Trade Center towers (known terrorist targets) had been struck by aircraft.


"I would also have wished to be sure that any interception would not make matters worse. It is not usually wise to rush towards anybody possessed of a loaded weapon, nor would it be wise to do anything jerky."

So what should NORAD have done? Nothing? An interception might very will make things worse if the plane being intercepted is over a populated area. But the point is, with Flight 77, we'll never know because no interception even occured. And your analogy about rushing towards someone with a loaded weapon isn't valid. The hijacked planes were not, after all, armed with missiles or anything. And if they were, it is the job of the military to rush towards those with "loaded weapons" who are threatening us. As far as doing "anything jerky", that is to vague a categorization to even do much good in advancing your point--whatever it is.

[RH]

8. because no interception even occured????

Yes it did.

What about the C130?

i.e.

"When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement -- by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away."

Siunds to me like the B757 turned to aim for the Pentagon precisely because a military plane was approaching.

[skypilot]

9. could you post a link...

...to wherever you read this story about the C130. This is news to me cosidering that this is what Richard Myers said at his confirmation hearings just a couple days after 9/11:

LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.

Even if what you are saying is true, I'd still have to ask you what your point is. Are you saying that if no plane had attempted to intercept Flight 77 that it would not have crashed into the Pentagon (or the White House or the Capitol)? What do you think they were doing with the plane? Going for a joyride? If the military had NOT done its job (which I don't think it did) where do you think that plane would have ended up? Did the C130 force Flight 77 to make a U-turn over the Ohio/Kentucky border? Did it force Flight 77 to dramatically decrease altitude to the point where it was shearing the tops off of light poles? Do you think the people who died in the Pentagon and on Flight 77 would be alive today if this C130 had NOT appeared? Are you saying that the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentaton was an accident caused by a military pilot who did something "jerky"? Jerky, as in doing his job?
If he had "backed off" would the outcome have been any different or any better? WHAT is your point?

[RH]

10. Joyride?

I'd always thought that the clipping of lamp poles and the close trajectory, within a few yards of the Navy Annex, is not indicactive of a deliberate, or at least of a pre planned approach.

And the more I see of the background the more I think that a "joy ride" explanation is not so unlikely.

The interview with Steve O'Brien, the Pilot of the C130 was by
Bob Von Sternberg: [email protected]

I downloaded the text from here:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/3213501.html
but the link is long since defunct.

The item may be available on Lexis Nexis.

The authorities kept quiet about the C130 at first. A witness told the Washington Post but they failed to mention it. When it turned out that too many witnesses had seen the plane its existence in the vicinity was confirmed.

The C130 had taken off from Andrews Air Base, the turn referred to would therefore be that supposed to have happened immediately before the B757 headed for the Pentagon. Possibly it was trying to duck out of the way. Possibly it was fired at or interfered with electronically, and thought that a low altitude above the Pentagon was a safer place to be.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Some have suggested that it is no coincidence that the C130 flew on towards the vicinity of the Flight 93 incident.

[skypilot]

11. Are you serious?!?!

"I'd always thought that the clipping of lamp poles and the close trajectory, within a few yards of the Navy Annex, is not indicactive of a deliberate, or at least of a pre planned approach."

Of course you're going to hit some lamp posts, telephone poles, etc. if you come in at that low an approach whether deliberately or not. How could that be avoided if you're landing somewhere other than on a landing strip?


"And the more I see of the background the more I think that a "joy ride" explanation is not so unlikely."

You're kidding right? Is that what this has all been about--you just jerking my chain? Were flights 11 and 175 on joyrides too? If you are serious, then you have left me almost speechless. Have a good day.

[skypilot]

12. Are you serious?!?!

"I'd always thought that the clipping of lamp poles and the close trajectory, within a few yards of the Navy Annex, is not indicactive of a deliberate, or at least of a pre planned approach."

Of course you're going to hit some lamp posts, telephone poles, etc. if you come in at that low an approach whether deliberately or not. How could that be avoided if you're landing somewhere other than on a landing strip?


"And the more I see of the background the more I think that a "joy ride" explanation is not so unlikely."

You're kidding right? Is that what this has all been about--you just jerking my chain? Were flights 11 and 175 on joyrides too? If you are serious, then you have left me almost speechless. But you're kidding, right?

[skypilot]

13. Are you serious?!?!

"I'd always thought that the clipping of lamp poles and the close trajectory, within a few yards of the Navy Annex, is not indicactive of a deliberate, or at least of a pre planned approach."

Of course you're going to hit some lamp posts, telephone poles, etc. if you come in at that low an approach whether deliberately or not. How could that be avoided if you're landing somewhere other than on a landing strip?


"And the more I see of the background the more I think that a "joy ride" explanation is not so unlikely."

You're kidding right? Is that what this has all been about--you just jerking my chain? Were flights 11 and 175 on joyrides too? If you are serious, then you have left me almost speechless. But you're kidding, right?

[skypilot]

14. Moderators

Sorry about the multiple posts. I thought the problem was on my end and kept trying to send the post through.

[RH]

17. How avoided?

How could that be avoided if you're landing somewhere other than on a landing strip?

If the B757 had simply flown in straight it could have easily enough have missed the poles.

If the event were pre planned, why then would the plane pass by the target and then circle round before heading at the target? What sense is that supposed to make?

To hit the poles it had to dip down and then level out. The descent elevation to the poles, over the Navy Annex was about two degrees above horizontal, and from there on about one degree above horizontal.

So it was at first headed for the lawn in front of the building rather than the building.

So what then would that tell you about the circumstance?

[study_war_no_more]

16. you mean like watching two planes slam into a buil;ding???

By the way are you having fun yet. This is obviously the point of your post.

[Abe Linkman]

15. U.S. air defense system likely involved.

RH said:

"Could at least some of the 9/11 attacks have been stopped if the US air defense system had reacted faster?

You tell me."

The 9/11 attacks were most likely self-inflicted, and the only plane that had passengers on it was FL 93, which was brought down by a missile fired from a military aircraft or one owned/leased by a "front" company.

The Barbara Olson phone calls are a hoax.

Sometimes, governments (even for "good" reasons) engage in conspiracies. We've been told that even SHussein's government engaged in a conspiracy to supply Al Qaeda with WMD.

Is there any War that the U.S. has been involved in, since our own Civil War, that wasn't ginned-up with a conspiracy by our government?

[RH]

18. a hoax?

"The Barbara Olson phone calls are a hoax."

And you can prove that how?

[Abe Linkman]

19. Proof

I assume you asked your question in good faith, and I wish that I could prove a negative to your satisfaction, but I'm afraid I can't.

May I ask you a question? Can you prove that Mrs. Olson made the phone calls in question? If so, how? I'm interested in seeing what evidence you might offer. I've read a fair amount about those alleged calls, but I've yet to see anything in the way of proof that the calls were made.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that logically seems to rule out the likelihood Mrs. Olson made any such phone calls from FL 77.

[RH]

20. "seems to rule out "?

According to normal standards of jurisprudence the assumption would rather be that your allegation is made in bad faith.

Mr. Olson has stated clearly enough that he received the calls.

According to what sort of logic would he be likely to fabricate such a story?

[Abe Linkman]

21. gbush & tblair also "stated clearly" some things that aren't accurate

I believe you have it just backwards. Under our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof would be on Mr. Olson (or you) to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

To date, there isn't even a shred of evidence that Mrs. Olson made any such calls. I believe you know that, right?

No WMD, no OBL, no SH, no truth to the claims about yellowcake purchases in Niger, and you expect people here to believe Ted Olson?

I doubt many people do. But, if you have anything to offer to back his/your claims, I for one, would be very interested to hear it.

Have telephone records been released? If so, I apologize. I just am not aware that anything has been offered that would back up such a claim.

[RH]

22. backwards!

:crazy:

So what then happened 'to innocent until proved guilty', the pertinent corollary being that a person's word stands good unless you prove otherwise?

Witness testimony is evidence. No other sort of evidence has any validity without a pertinent person to vouch for its authenticity.

I do not know that any records are released.

I would not have expected any release of evidence before a criminal trial. Since when would it be usual to do so?

I would expect Olsen to have the sense not to fabricate a story in the face of any possibility of company records to gainsay him.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Many of us expected the POTUS to tell the truth, too.

RH sais:

"I would expect Olsen to have the sense not to fabricate a story in the face of any possibility of company records to gainsay him."

Maybe Mr. Olson isn't worried about company records being made available, and he certainly hasn't released those under his control, has he?

Now, do you have any evidence or just self-serving claims from someone who has already publicly admitted that the Government often tells lies.

I don't accept Mr. Olson's word. For some strange reason, you want to give him a pass. Why?

[RH]

24. ??

:eyes:

Jurisprudence is not a matter of what I want.

[Abe Linkman]

25. Truth about 9/11 is what I believe most Americans want

Unfortunately, our government doesn't seem to want us to have it.

Ted Olson is the Solicitor General of the United States, but when he goes to court on behalf of the government, his assertions are not given any more weight than would be yours or mine. That is as it should be. We require evidence and proof to substantiate claims.

From what I've read, if it is true that Mrs. Olson made those phone calls from flight 77, that would go a long way towards quieting those who, unlike yourself, are not convinced that we have been told the truth about 9/11.

Therefore, it is more than passing strange that Mr. Olson hasn't backed up his claims, no telephone company records have been offered, and the only in-depth examinations of the likelihood of such calls having been made do not favor the truthfulness of what Mr. Olson has alleged.

Would you be in favor of demanding that Mr. Olson provide some proof?

[RH]

26. told the truth?

How could anybody possibly be convinced of being told the whole truth about 9/11?

The USA is not alone in employing secret services, in which respect not to be told the whole truth is the status quo.

So what else is new?

B-)

Did 9/11 have to happen to realise that?

If you can't trust the Solicitor General of the United States, you have a serious political problem to solve, against which the details of 9/11/2001 pale into insignificance.

:scared:

Nevertheless I would welcome nothing more than a proper trial of those in effect found guilty without a trial.

In the mean time the sort of online trials by paranoid speculation, false logic and uncorroborated hearsay offer no comfort to me at all, the most persitently absurd of the fallacies being that an accuser's ignorance would somehow prove his own accusation.

:thumbsdown:

When I give my name I do not on every occassion provide a birth certificate.

Am I therefore somebody else?

:+

[Abe Linkman]

27. Mr. Olson is about as credible as other members of this Administration

"When I give my name I do not on every occassion provide a birth certificate.

Am I therefore somebody else?"

Maybe.

I don't know who you are. You could be anyone, for all I know. But, if you wanted to cash a check or give testimony, or make an allegation about some aspect of a crime, your word alone, won't cut it.

I just have a simple question: why should anyone accept a claim made about something as important as those phone calls, without any evidence or any way to verify them?

Maybe others are just as "accepting" as you are. But, I'd be surprised. Especially, if they've studied the facts.

[RH]

28. why should anyone accept a claim?

" why should anyone accept a claim made about something as important as those phone calls, without any evidence or any way to verify them?"

Mens Rea.

Or perhaps because they'd already wasted far too much time on checking out alleged "facts" which turned out to be nothing of the sort.


:hurts:


I am less and less impressed by those whose agenda, for reasons best known to themselves, would appear to be, from force of habit, to impugn the "official" version while never do they show the slightest concern, let alone any objection with regard to so many of the more ridiculously false assertions, deliberate deceptions and wild imaginings generated as if towards that effect.

[Abe Linkman]

29. If any evidence existed, it would have been released.

Ted Olson's stories about alleged phone calls to him from his wife, while aboard AA Flight 77 on 9/11, have been vague and contradictory.

I don't accept Mr. Olson's claims, but I respect your right (obligation?) to support his stories.

If you ever come up with anything, and I do mean anything, that would substantiate these absurd claims by Mr. Olson, I'm sure we can count on you to do your duty, right?

[RH]

30. anything.

According to the Washington Post Barbara Olson was not the only one to call from AA77:

"Herded to the back of the plane by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters, the passengers and crew members of American Airlines Flight 77 -- including the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a Senate staffer, three D.C. schoolchildren and three teachers on an educational field trip and a University Park family of four headed to Australia for a two-month adventure -- were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

[Abe Linkman]

31. That's IT?

If that is all you know of to back up your claim, you don't have anything.

"...were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die."

So, are you now trying to claim that there were other people who also allegedly made calls from AA Flight 77? Who called, who did they call, when (before/after Mrs. Olson is alleged to have called her husband), did they use cell phones or seatback phones or walkie-talkies, and where is the proof or other means to verify this?

There's really no reason to continue this, unless you can prove your claim. Otherwise, we'll agree to disagree.

With this Administration, I think most reasonable people have learned that their word means nothing, and their evidence may well be suspected of being bogus.

That doesn't seem to bother you. It does me.

[RH]

32. Claim?

:shrug:

I claim that the paragraph quoted was published.

Do you dispute that it was?

And would you then have anything except for your paranoia to add to this?

[Abe Linkman]

33. I'll accept it was published, but you still have no evidence.

Why didn't you respond to the questions I asked?

You've given no evidence, no proof, only unproven, unsubstantiated claims by a government official who has stated that the government often lies.

Nice tries, I guess. But, without anything to back up your claims, you can't be taken seriously.

[RH]

34. Claims?

:shrug:

What "claims"?

Since when should I have to prove anything?

[Abe Linkman]

35. It's still a free country.

You don't "have to prove anything," and you couldn't prove the bogus claims about the Olsons even if you wanted to, because they aren't true.

Sorry, "sexed-up" reports from British "intelligence" are not admissible. You'll have to have verifiable proof.

We're waiting.

[RH]

36. waiting

Yes, we're waiting.

:eyes:

First for you to grasp the point: innocent until proved guilty.

:eyes:

Then for you to prove your allegation.

If that is possible it may perhaps be more of an entertainment than your mindlessly shallow repetition of a malicious tort.

Or would you prefer to discuss the laws of defamation?

[skypilot]

37. Hey, Abe Linkman

If I were you I wouldn't waste anymore time on this guy. Anyone who thinks that it is "not unlikely" that Flight 77 (the plane that crashed into the Pentagon) was a joyride gone bad is either jerking our chain or not playing with a full deck. I've given up on this guy.

[skypilot]

38. In fact...

...click on the link below. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what is lurking behind the initials RH.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame81.html

[RH]

39. No.

He did not say "not unlikely".

:puke:

He said "nor so unlikely".

[RH]

40. So how about it?

oops, "nor so..." hould read "not so unlikely", i.e. not as unlikely as had been made out.

The B757 was at first headed for the lawn in front of the building rather than the building.

So what then would that tell you?

Remarkable also to head for the only part of the building already reinforced with two inch thick windows, don't you think?

From a low altitide west of the Navy Annex the B757 would not even be in sight of the Pentagon.

Is that how you would have gone about it?

When you run out of arguments it is all too easy to resort to the 'ad hominem', isn't it?

But very boring.

[skypilot]

41. so let me get this straight

It is "not so unlikely" that our fun-loving hijackers were tired of their joyride and so instead of attempting to land the plane at, say Ronald Reagan International Airport they attempt a landing on the lawn of the Pentagon but their "landing" turned into a "crashing" because they were being pursued by a pilot in a C130 who did something "jerky". Is that the scenario you envision.

[skypilot]

42. And in the context...

...of this discussion AND in the context of the events of 9/11 it hardly makes a difference whether you said "not unlikely" or "not so likely". The very idea that the hijackers of Flight 77 were on a joyride gone bad is still patently ridiculous.

[skypilot]

43. excuse me

"...it hardly makes a difference whether you said "not unlikely" or "not so UNLIKELY..." is what I meant to say.

[RH]

44. Scenario.

The question that continually bothers me is 'if the intention pepertrators was as if towards some kind of coldly calculated end, why then would they never bother to tell us what that end was supposed to be?'

Or was that something about which the whole truth has not been revealed?

Did hijackers possibly fullfil a threat because an immediate demand was refused?

For the sake of imaginative argument, for instance, a hijacker may have demanded to speak to POTUS Bush or to meet face to face. Bush was due to be in Washington later that day.

On another hand if somebody like Hanjour was indeed piloting the B757 then yes, I would think it possible that his comprehension of the local topography was abysmally mistaken.

O'Brien, the pilot of the C130 said that "With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out."

How good then was the visibility of the ground from the B757 as it turned towards the sun?

Many have previously commented to the effect that Hanjour could not possibly have managed such a 'skilled maneuver'.

Seems reasonable to me then to ask what is so skilled about hitting five lamp poles.

[skypilot]

45. The hijackers...

...could have had lots of reasons for doing what they did and the reasons they never told us those reasons is because they are dead. Anyway, I hardly think that anyone missed the point the hijackers made: they hate America and what it stands for, in their minds, and they wanted to show us that we could be hit, and hit hard. I'm sure their reasons were even more complicated than that but, like I said, they took those reasons to the grave with them.

I'm still not convinced about this C130 thing, especially since the link you provided is now defunct and what the hell does O'Brien mean by "East Coast haze"? It was sunny and clear in the Northeastern part of the U.S. that day. It wasn't hot or humid enough to be hazy and besides I think Los Angeles, on the WEST Coast is known more for being hazy. I live on the East Coast and I'm not familiar with this famous "East Coast haze" that O'Brien mentions.

Finally, I don't think anyone has ever said that hitting lamps pole is evidence of skill. The point is that it would take alot of skill (or luck) to descend to such a low altitude while flying at high speed and NOT lose control of the aircraft and crash into the ground. I hardly think that men on a SUICIDE mission gave a damn about hitting a few lamp poles while en route to the main target--the Pentagon. Your harping about lamp poles adds nothing to this discussion. The poles were in front of them, the hijackers knocked them down. So what? Do you think they would have gone out of their way to avoid a few poles if they had been more "skilled"? These guys weren't that considerate, to say the very least. Your "point" is as vague as ever.

[TolstoyAndy]

46. Truth About Olson

Can I get in here a sec?

RH: "If you can't trust the Solicitor General of the United States, you have a serious political problem to solve,"

How in the name of cheeses can we trust a single thing that comes out of the mouth of a scumbag as hip-deep in Selection 2000 as Olson?

Not to speak ill of the dead...
and yet...his wife used to make me want to put a boot through my TV.

So yeah, me and a lot of folks here have a serious poltical problem with a lot of people, and it predates 9/11 by far enough.

The Constitution was subverted by these criminals, and until we know every detail of every hour of that morning, they get no presumption of innocence from me.

I have always had a suspicion about all the phone calls, on all the flights, especially since *pRetzel started saying "let's roll".

[skypilot]

47. "...serious political problem to solve."

If you read almost any thread on this board it's obvious that people know that we have a serious political problem to solve. We hardly need to be told that.

[CaptainMidnight]

48. Captain Mike, weighing in

Guys,

This RH dude. Whoah.

It's like arguing with a chair. You can't win. You can't lose. You can't even break even or agree do disagree. You just end up WASTING A LOT OF TIME. It's futile.

Save your debate for someone like me, or others, who wanna find the truth, even if it contradicts what we believe.

As far the THE VERY FIRST EVIDENCE WE HAD OF HIJACKERS being Ted Olson going on TV and telling us his wife called him, well, I look at it this way:

Election 2000 was too close to call, until FOX NEWS just went ahead, with no proof, and called it for Bush, thusly putting the burden on Al Gore to prove otherwise, and to live down being a "sore loserman."

Who was the anchorman that night for FOX that gave the Election to Bush? Why, John Ellis. John Ellis is Bush's first cousin.

There goes that credibility, as did the rest of the Election, when we found out that the woman in charge of counting the votes, Katherine Harris, was working directly for the Bush campaign.

"Coincidences" like this abound in the charmed life of George Bush.

Sorry, but the first and foremost source of cell phone calls and actual hijackers on board those planes was none other than BUSH'S FUCKING LAWYER WHO ARGUED BUSH VS. GORE BEFORE THE REAGAN/ BUSH-APPOINTED SUPREME COURT!

I mean, it'd have more street cred with me if it was any other person amongst the 300 million Americans, aside from Clinton-hating, Arkansas Project-heading, Bush Consigliere, TED FUCKING OLSON!

HAVE I MADE MY POINT HERE?

Don't waste any more of your time on RH.

Jesus,

Captain MIke

[RH]

49. First and foremost ?

For somebody who wants to find the truth Captain Mike does not seem to know much too much about it.

Where does this "cell phone" idea come from?

Ted Olsen was quite specific about it:

"She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats,"

"I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

If she called collect then there must have been a record of it, so where does that leave you?

How could he lie about that, when it was not even himself but his secretary who first took the call?

The first and foremost source of actual hijackers on board would be the passenger lists, hence those who attest to them boarding the plane, and others who had seen them in Maryland the week before.

[reorg]

50. collect call from plane?

not sure this is possible. Called once from Singapore Airlines - needed to swipe a credit card for that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5415.html

[RH]

51. Collect Call?

This objection had been pointed out before and certainly enough it was journalistically feeble if nobody ever pressed for a full explanation.

Ted Olsen speculated to the effect that Barbara Olsen did not have her purse, which would in turn possibly have something to do with being moved quickly around inside an aircraft under duress.

Without knowing all the technical details I would guess that she borrowed a card to initiate the calls while politely undertaking to have them paid for. Alternatively calling collect may simply have been an astute ploy to get a call through because she'd not managed quickly enough to connect directly.

[AndyTiedye]

52. Does Miss Manners Say...

...that you should call collect when using a fellow passengers credit card
to tell your loved ones that your plane is hijacked and you are about to die any second now?

I must have an older edition.

[RH]

53. older edition?

:eyes:

So which older edition said "about to die any second now?"

According to the edition that I saw "We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK" and before calling Barbara Olsen did not know what had happened in New York.

The immediate purpose of the calls was clearly explained in the same edition, to announce the situation and seek advice to tell the pilot what to do.

As it happens, in times of stress, even after an unfortuanate result let alone before an unfortunate result, complete denial is a usual reaction.

When hijackings had previously taken place passengers were known to have contined to read their newspapers, as if to carry on regardless.

[Abe Linkman]

54. Other questions for "Miss Manners"

Does your edition advise handing the phone to the pilot, or merely carrying on a three way conversation? Isn't it considered rude to be yelling to a third party (in this case, man in a uniform) while talking on the phone (your cell phone, a seat-back phone, someone else's phone, or a ghost phone)?

Oh, and do you recall what Ted said he told his wife to tell the pilot?
(Ted does speak Arabic, right?)

And, is there something in her book that says it's impolite to reveal which fellow passenger was kind enough to let Babs use their phone?

Has Ted ever offered to reimburse that person for the charge on their credit card?

[RH]

55. 'She asked me how to stop the plane'

Perhaps Barbara Olsen presumed that Burlingame was still flying the plane.

The link still works. Read it:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:1NQeDqTI-6UJ:www.telegraph.co.uk/family/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/family/2002/03/05/folsen05.xml+%22Ted+Olsen%22+%22Barbara+Olsen%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

'She asked me how to stop the plane'
(Filed: 05/03/2002)


US Solicitor General Ted Olson's wife, Barbara, was the first victim of the September 11 terrorist attacks to be named. He tells Toby Harnden of her bravery during her final call from the hijacked plane - and of his determination to fight back


A LITTLE over two months after his wife was killed on September 11, Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, received a photograph from the US Air Force. It showed a laser-guided missile before it was launched from a strike aircraft against a Taliban target in Afghanistan. The name Barbara Olson had been chalked on the side of the weapon in her memory.


Ted Olsen: 'I get reminded of her in scores of ways every day'
"It looked like a 500lb bomb," says Ted Olson, his grief-racked face creasing into a smile for the first time in nearly an hour. "She would have liked that. Barbara was a warrior, so she would have wanted to fight back. And she would have applauded the people who did go and fight back."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, has described Barbara, a writer, lawyer and political commentator, as "Ted's departed Spitfire". Apart from the Clintons, she and her husband were probably America's most combative couple - he in the courtroom and she on the talk shows, America's 21st-century court of public opinion. The couple liked to joke that they were at the heart of what Hillary Clinton - the subject of Barbara's excoriating biography Hell to Pay - famously described as a "vast, right-wing conspiracy".

Their beautiful colonial-style mansion in Great Falls, Virginia, was the venue for huge parties at which the conservative intelligentsia would gather. The Olsons were wine connoisseurs and would often travel to California to replenish their cellar.

She always drove a Jaguar; he preferred a Mercedes, after years of favouring Porsches. They shared a love of poetry, Shakespeare and the opera and were keen collectors of modern art. He named their first Australian Shepherd dog Maggie, after Lady Thatcher. She called the second one Reagan, after the president her husband had represented during the Iran-Contra hearings in the 1980s.

They were married in 1996, he for the third time and she for the second, but they seemed more like high-school sweethearts. Throughout the working day, they would speak on what they called the "bat phone". Each would turn down dinner invitations if the other was not included.

Today, Ted looks wretched; his eyes begin to redden and he occasionally wipes away a tear as he talks. He returned to work six days after September 11 and has been putting in 80-hour weeks ever since, leaving home each morning at 5.30am. Among the issues he has championed has been new anti-terrorist legislation.

He has rationalised his wife's death, but still seems unable to accept she is gone. "You see a blonde woman walking through a crowd, or you see something that reminds you of that person, the way a person turns their head, or their shoes - Barbara wore these very flashy, high-heeled shoes - things like that," he says. "I get reminded of her in scores of ways every day, in something I see or something that flashes through my mind."

We are sitting in the office of the Solicitor General on the fifth floor of the Justice Department building in Washington. One wall is lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court arguments. An ancient, well-thumbed copy of the US constitution is propped up on Olson's reassuringly untidy desk.

This is the man who argued in the Supreme Court for the winning side in the Bush versus Gore case that decided the presidential election in 2000. As a result, Olson's Democratic opponents in the Senate came close to blocking his nomination as the Bush administration's chief courtroom advocate. Soon, he will be defending Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to hand over documents to Congress as part of the investigation into the Enron scandal, and he will have to do so without his staunchest ally.

In their 11 years together, the Olsons seemed indivisible, as well as formidable. "Everybody identified us as 'Barbara and Ted'," he says. "It wasn't 'Ted' and 'Barbara' separately. It was a love affair, and a deep, abiding friendship. It was a partnership in every sense of the word."

The final time I saw them together was last summer, at a small dinner on Capitol Hill. Olson had just won his nomination fight and gave us an update on the partisan struggle that was shaping up in Congress. "We are at war," I remember him saying, as his wife nodded vigorously in agreement.

A few weeks later, I interviewed Barbara and three other conservative women about the new mood in Washington. A loose comment of hers - that President Bill Clinton's late mother had been "a bar-fly" who had allowed herself to be used by men - was noticed by the Washington Post and Democrats rushed to castigate her for being cruel and unfeeling. Many people would have blamed the journalist for misquoting her or tried to wriggle out some other way, but Barbara Olson didn't.

"Barbara's reaction was, 'I did say it'," says Ted. "She would never duck responsibility. It was a hurtful thing and she wished she hadn't said it. She thought the right thing to do was to make a forthright, unequivocal, direct apology, so she did. That's the kind of thing that I respect. She didn't try to soften it. She would not run away from the consequences of her actions."

It was her last newspaper interview. On September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 plunged into the Pentagon with Barbara Olson on board. It was Ted Olson's 61st birthday that day and Barbara had delayed flying to Los Angeles so they could celebrate over dinner the night before.

That morning, a nightmare began to unfold in the room where we are now sitting. "Someone rushed in and told me what had happened. I went into the other room, where there's a television," Olson says. "It went through my mind, 'My God, maybe - Barbara's on an airplane, and two airplanes have been crashed', you know."

Then his secretary told him that Barbara was on the line. "My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes." But Barbara then explained calmly that she had been herded to the back of the Boeing 757 she was on, along with the other passengers.

"She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

He was able to tell her about the World Trade Centre attacks before the line went dead, then he called his departmental command centre to let them know another plane had been hijacked. The phone rang again and it was Barbara.

"She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.

"We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK, she was still alive, the plane was still up in the air. But I think she knew that it wasn't going to be OK and I knew it wasn't going to be OK."

They were able to have "personal exchanges", he says, before they were cut off in mid-conversation. "It just stopped. It could be the impact, although I think she would have There's no point in speculating."

As soon as he heard a plane had crashed at the Pentagon, he says, "I knew it was her". Olson's voice, which his wife once described as a "rich, rumbling, sort of makes-your-ribs-vibrate" sound, begins to scratch like tired feet wading through gravel. It drops to a whisper and he fetches a glass of water.

He returns and explains that his wife's last moments were typical of her. "It was a deeply embedded part of Barbara's character that she would not have stood by and done nothing. She was engaged in living. She would not accept that things could be done to her without her doing something about it. She was passionate. She was brave. She was involved."

He remained in the office for several hours, telephoning friends and family to let them know Barbara was dead. "There was no point in trying to go home," he says. "The streets were jammed with people trying to move, and no one was moving. So I stayed here until about two o'clock."

Soon, Barbara Olson became the first victim of the attacks to be named on television. She was also the most famous person to die that day.

That afternoon, friends began to gather at the Olsons' house. Ken Starr, the independent counsel who nearly removed president Bill Clinton from office, manned the telephone. Among those who rang to offer their condolences were the two busiest men in America - Mr Bush, who called from Air Force One, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York.

Finally, at 1am, Olson went upstairs to bed. On his pillow he found a note his wife had left less than 20 hours earlier. "I love you," it said. "When you read this, I will be thinking of you and I will be back on Friday."

Olson compares her defiance at the end of her life with that of the heroes of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. "Barbara didn't have as much warning, and I don't think she had as many resources," he says. "But it would have been entirely within her character to take action herself."

By killing Barbara Olson, the terrorists incurred the wrath of America, from the White House to the scores of thousands of ordinary people who turned her posthumously published The Final Days, about the controversial end of the Clinton presidency, into a best-seller.

During a recent visit to Florida, when Mr Bush was asked by schoolchildren in Orlando how he had felt on September 11, he told them: "I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America." His use of the title of Barbara Olson's first book was no accident.

"9/11 has stiffened the resolve of people in this country, and Barbara was quintessentially American," says Olson. "She was Texan. She was a ballet dancer. She worked in the movie industry. She went to a Catholic college and to a Jewish law school. She was a lawyer. She worked as a government investigator, best-selling author, television commentator. And she was only 45. She was successful because of something about the culture of this country."

Suddenly, the Solicitor General, who has been slumped in his chair, sits bolt upright. "We are going to fight back," he says, deliberately. "We are not going to quit. We are not going to stop. We are not going to forget."

[Abe Linkman]

56. Perhaps Barbara Olsen presumed that Burlingame was still flying the plan

Perhaps the whole story about her alleged calls is bogus. By now, if there was any evidence, it would have been released. The 9/11 Commissioners would love to have been able to play this up because it is so central to the events of 9/11.

Perhaps there is nothing to substantiate the story because it's only a fairy tale.

[RH]

59. Fairy tale?

Olsen's version is evident.

What do have to substantiate your version?

[reorg]

57. Where the "cell phone" idea came from

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/

Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane

September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)

"... Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.

Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles. ... "

[Abe Linkman]

58. Oh, I see. It's only a claim from the man who says the Gov. lies a lot.

Don't you know about Ted Olson? He's about as believable as a bush.
With people like him, you gotta have more than a claim. You need evidence, and I don't mean the kind of bogus evidence like you'd get from a bush.

[RH]

60. Evidence.

:eyes:

To prove a criminal allegation against anybody you are supposed to have evidence.

So what do you have?

And I don't mean the sort of idle gossip you get all over internet.

[Abe Linkman]

61. That's the whole point; there's no evidence of those calls.

Some people just seem to suspend their normally good judgment when it comes to some of the more outrageous claims regarding 9/11. Despite the fact that there is zero evidence to substantiate the story, some of our fellow citizens are "buying" the claims that Mrs. Olson made cell phone (in some versions, the calls were said to have been made from a seatback phone) calls to her husband, from FL 77. Others are asking why the pilot didn't call someone to ask what he should do, but that's another matter.

It's understandable that there will always be a certain number of gullible people who refuse to believe that the government might lie, but what's odd to me, is that there anyone here at DU would "fall" for such fairy tales.

[RH]

62. Good Judgement?

:shrug:

I am bewildered. Gullibility is not the issue. The issue is jurisprudence. According to which particular code of jurisprudence do you operate? "Good Judgement", even in the USA, is supposed to accord to well established rules and principles.

With due regard to expected evidence would not the sensible presumption be that records of a 'collect' call do exist?

Whether or not you have seen any may be of some interest in terms of propaganda. You may not indeed, unfortunately, have seen any records but that does not begin to prove to me that none exist. Or do you perhaps have any convincing evidence to present to imply a deliberate concealment of this evidence? If so I dare say that we would have seen it by now, and if any records were to appear I dare say you'd be telling us how easy it would be be to fake.

Very boring.

:eyes:

A statement from anybody who ever answered a telephone call would usually be evidence to the very effect that the call took place, especially when would presumably be corroborated by a third party (i.e. Olsen's secretary).

This would be so any normal court of law. The onus would then fall to anybody who wishes to gainsay the case to prove otherwise. Why is this so difficult to accept?

It may be possible to gainsay the evidence by impugning the character of the witness but it would then, to say the least, be somewhat odd to expect to presume against your Solicitor General. Just how far do you seriously expect to get with that?

Or do you seriously think it better to conduct trials by internet lynch mob, accoding to nothing more than the principle of 'I don't like him. I don't believe him. He is therefore guilty'?

[Abe Linkman]

63. Does ANYONE here at DU know of any evidence for those alleged calls?

If anyone here can cite any evidence, or even make a good argument for the truth of the claims about Mrs. Olson supposedly making phone calls from FL 77 to her husband, would you please post that evidence or argument for the rest of us.

I know that one person here is going to continue to argue, even without any evidence, but the rest of us would be interested in any proof anyone cite.

[RH]

64. interested

So what is the thesis supposed to be?

That Ted Olsen simply made it up?

Or for good measure did two fake calls actually get through to Ted Olsen?

Why then would it be so impossible to fake the source of the calls?

:shrug:

Would some seriously have us believe that it is possible to fake the entire event of the collision of a B757 with the Pentagon, but not the source of a phone call?

[Abe Linkman]

65. Teddy Boy's Tall Tale

"So what is the thesis supposed to be?

That Ted Olsen simply made it up?"


YES, except that Ted probably had a lot of help. (there's no reason to think the idea originated with him)

[reorg]

66. all evidence I know is in the following references

Basically, there seem to be two versions, a “CNN version” and the “Telegraph version”. They differ in significant parts.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson/
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/25/lkl.00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,55040,00.html (refers to and embellishes CNN version)
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/09/03/ar911.phone.calls/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fhealth%2F2002%2F03%2F05%2Ffolsen05.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=147907 (already quoted by RH, this links still works however, if you register, free)



Telegraph in March 2002:

When he is told in his office what happened in New York (presumably at around 9 a.m.), he thinks his wife may be on one of those planes. When told his wife is on the line, he feels relief ("My first reaction when I heard she was on the phone was relief, because I knew that she wasn't on one of those two airplanes.").

His wife then explains "calmly" the passengers were herded to the back of the plane. "She had had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her cellphone, she was using the phone in the passengers' seats," says Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy."

He then tells her about the WTC attacks, the line goes dead, he informs the departmental command centre.

Then she calls again: "She wanted to know, 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?' I tried to find out where she thought she was - I wanted to know where the airplane was and what direction it was going in, because I thought that was the first step to being able to do something.

We both tried to reassure one another that everything was going to be OK, she was still alive, the plane was still up in the air. But I think she knew that it wasn't going to be OK and I knew it wasn't going to be OK."

They were able to have "personal exchanges", he says, before they were cut off in mid-conversation. "It just stopped. It could be the impact, ..."
-------------------------------------------------


CNN,(most comprehensive in LKL interview with Olson) in December 2001:

“First, in a rather long-winded statement, he explains that he was relieved BEFORE his wife calls him:

“I had heard a few moments before, a few minutes before, of the disaster occurring at the World Trade Center. There's a television center in the back of my office. I turned it on and watched with horror the film being -- replaying the airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center...

KING: Both crashing.

T. OLSON: Both. The second one had just occurred, I think, when I had turned it on, but they were -- where they were all -- well, it occurred in such a fashion that they had film of it, which, as this station, and I think I was watching CNN, and I was relieved, because at the moment that I heard there was hijacked planes, I was both terrified and fearful for everything that was going on, but I made a mental calculation, because it -- the thing -- the first thing that comes into your mind is that Barbara's plane, could that be one of those planes?

And I thought, oh, thank goodness, it can't be her plane. I'm sounding rather selfish here, but that just went through my mind...

KING: Understandable.

T. OLSON: ... because there wasn't enough time for that airplane to have gotten to New York.”


Over the phone she tells him the plane has been hijacked.

He then states he cannot remember what exactly was said at what point in time – even in which of both calls she said it. He “BELIEVES”: “she told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box-cutters to hijack the plane. She mentioned that the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.”

He then tells her about the WTC attacks. They reassure one another. At some point she asks "What shall I tell the pilot?”, she sounds remarkably calm. He “by this time had made the calculation that these were suicide persons bent on destroying as much of America as they could, and ...”

At some point he “asked her if she had any sense for where she was.” They had been “circling around” and she could see houses. She thinks “it's going northeast.”

Finally, he mentions cell phones: “And then the phone went dead. I don't know whether it just got cut off again, because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes aren't -- don't work that well, or whether that was the impact with the Pentagon.”
-------------------------------------------------


The two renditions differ significantly in at least three points:

1. In all reports on CNN, explicit reference is made to "cell phones". Olson mentions cell phones in the interview, whereas the part about his wife having trouble getting through, NOT using a cell phone and calling collect is COMPLETELY MISSING ... despite the fact that he gives here an otherwise more detailed and comprehensive account than in the Telegraph article. In the Telegraph, the collect call/seat phone part is stated as a verbative Olson quote.

2. On CNN, Olson explicitly states that he was convinced – and relieved – that his wife could not have been on one of the WTC attack planes whereas in the Telegraph article he says it was the first phone call which caused this relief.

3. On CNN, he states that he does not remember what was said at which specific point in time (and at what time exactly the calls were made) whereas the Telegraph gives the impression of a certain chain of events.


I find it extremely odd that someone could not exactly remember events that after all only lasted about 4-5 minutes at most, occured three months earlier and must have been extremely important to him. This is a top lawyer? I had twice the opportunity to give evidence before court and I believe I was more consistent and precise, even though the events in question had happened more than a YEAR before.

And I still have my doubts if it is even possible to call collect from seat phones in planes. Verizon is the operator of such phones on American Airlines and United Airlines. On their site I found the following interesting quote:

http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_faqs.html#af5

“Who is billed when I receive a call?
You will be billed for the call, but you get to choose whether or not to accept any incoming calls. Here's what happens: The phone will ring on the plane and the screen will indicate a call for your seat location. You'll enter your PIN (to ensure that no one else can answer your call) and the phone number of the calling party will be displayed on the screen. If you want to accept the call, you will be prompted to slide a billing card to pay for the call. Once you have accepted the call you will be connected automatically to the party on the ground. If you choose not to accept the call, follow the screen prompts and no billing will occur. No billing ever occurs for the ground party”

NO BILLING EVER OCCURS FOR THE GROUND PARTY??? Even if the call originates not in the plane? How is a collect call supposed to be billed then?


So, if the Telegraph article just added a little fiction to what CNN reported Mr. Olson as saying, we are left with the question: is it then possible to make cell phone calls from an airplane?

As of yet I have not seen any statements from persons who have succeeded making such calls. OK, it is illegal to make that test on your own – but most of you will have seen the following site:

http://www.feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/media_release_030427.html

“Professor A.K. Dewdney, author of ‘Ghost Riders in the Sky’, has released the results of the third and concluding experiment in the 'Project Achilles' series,.

From the data, he concludes that the spate of cellphone calls, allegedly made from ‘hijacked’ airplanes on September 11th 2001, was 'impossible'. “

Hm.

[Abe Linkman]

67. Thanks, Reorg. You uncovered something very interesting.

Ted drinks a bit (and is a notorious womanizer), and that might account for some of his memory lapses. His hair may have been hurting that day, and reading his script might have been a little more challenging than what he was "up" for.

Regarding the collect calls information; that is very interesting, indeed. I'm sure we'll hear how it is seeeimingly possible that this issue is murky and Ted did the best he could, given his profound grief and everything, don't you know. They won't let THAT one stay in the record without some attempt to fuzz it over, change the subject, question your patriotism, or even demand that you prove that Babs couldn't have not made a collect call to her husband. After all, he's the Solicitor General (President's liar).

Very good work. Thank you again. Another nail in the coffin of that key, crucial bogus claim about 9/11.

[RH]

68. Hm.

So what do we have?

Suppose then for the sake of argument that collect calls can't ever be made outwards from an airphone but all calls to an airphone are always in effect 'collect' calls. Possibly then the Justice Department called back to the plane and Ted's Secreteary said to him "We have have Barbara on the line ... says its very urgent ... a collect call"

They're hardly on your hook. You're still not proving anything except that your Solicitor General is not on top of everthing all the time and has next to no idea of the basic technicalities of the systems he uses.

Come to think of it, without a competent assisant to solve the problems that all too often arise with this machine before me I'd be sunk.

The evidence you want is way beyond the standard of any article from CNN or the Telegraph. All the rest is propaganda.

[Abe Linkman]

69. What we have is the malarky I said we'd hear.

Suppose then, that for the sake of argument, we just say that anything is possible...including Ted's secretary getting a psychic vibe that they ought to call FL 77 & telling whoever answered (just assume that if it was one of OBL's "boys," that he understood English) that they were just wondering if someone had been trying to reach Ted.


Reorg: I told you we would have something like this from the other side, and we got a doozy. In their minds, they simply cannot allow the public to know what really happened, even if that means making up malarky BS like Ted's secretary calling the plane! It would be sad, if the implications weren't so peculiar.

Don't expect Ted to release any phone records from the Justice Department. (he's so confused, he probably "accidentally" erased/shredded them. you know how when Ted is busy on something for Mr. Scaife, he kinda gets confused, especially during the cocktail hour)

Ted's friend here cannot cite any evidence to support his claims, because folks, there ain't no evidence. The story is a fairy tale.

[RH]

70. Smoke and mirrors.

You insults, Abe, betray nothing else but your desperate inability to prove your own fairy tale.

I have no reason to be fond of Ted Olsen. I do have reason to be fond of jurisprudence. I once spent a week in a prison because of nothing more than what somebody else wrongly imagined to be true.

It would indeed be foolish to expect any government ever to release one word more than they have to. So what? What else is new?

You do not thus prove that there is no evidence to release. You are only appealing to others' prejudice.

The Justice Department calling back to the plane would not be so far fetched. The story was that it was difficult to get through to the Justice Department. Presumably that would stand up to some examination. Perhaps then a message was left to call back asap. Perhaps a message got through to the Justice Department indirectly.

You do not know, and Ted Olsen may not even know. When all said and done he would have one or two other things to worry about.

Why try to grab the smoke when there are so many much more solid charges to lay?

If records were published would you believe them?

[Abe Linkman]

71. No records, no facts, no logic, no end to trying to avoid reality.

"If records were published would you believe them?"

If any legitimate records existed; they would have been released a long time ago, because those alleged calls are key to maintaining so much of the rest of the "story" about what happened at the Pentagon, at the WTC, and in Pennsylvania.

Why continue a campaign to try to confuse the issue with smoke and mirrors, fantastical theories, and unfair attempts to try to avoid having to provide evidence of your claim that Mrs. Olson called her husband? Why are you doing that?

[RH]

72. would have?

:shrug:

Why "would have been released a long time ago"?

Because of what need or pressure?

Which Planet are you on?

They're home and dry.

The opinion at large would be to the effect that yours is the fantastical theory.

What's the 'mens rea' supposed to be?

Why indeed confuse the issue?

If the need was simply to stitch up a story any feeble mind could have thought of a hundred better ways to do so.

If records were published would you believe them?

[Abe Linkman]

73. Mens Rea: who in THIS Admin. DOESN'T have a guilty mind?

"What's the 'mens rea' supposed to be?"
"If records were published would you believe them?"

The mens rea of whom? Anyone who is knowlingly putting out a false story has a guilty mind.

The only records that COULD be published would be falsified documents, and you know it as well as I do (or maybe better than I do). Their track record of producing factually accurate documentary evidence isn't exactly confidence-building, is it?

Thinking people have learned that this administration is the most dishonest and corrupt in U.S. history. Anyone who is even half-way informed, and still defends the integrity of it, is either deceiving themselves, or else maybe on their payroll, or is otherwise benefiting financially from their association with them.

Just as they lied about WMD in Iraq, so too, they lied about the events of 9/11...starting with the lies about phone calls to Theodore Olson.

[RH]

74. <-->

Exactly as I'd thought.

You're upside down.

:silly:

Mens rea would usually be a supposition to be judged according to available evidence.

You're supposing evidence according to an available mens rea.

[Abe Linkman]

75. According to the available evidence...

What we have is a complete fabrication about alleged phone calls between the Olsons.

Mens rea refers to a "guilty or wrongful purpose." Here, the wrongful purpose is to buttress the lies about what really happened on 9/11.

Are you a lawyer?

[RH]

76. Blue moon.

I am only a lawyer to the extent of having occasionally spoken for myself in Court, to thus exclude the professional sort, which is not usually a great idea, there being no greater sin to a lawyer than to put him out of business.

What you have is your allegation but nothing to prove it.

To get any further you'd need some assistance from within the establishment.

If none has yet come, is it ever likely to?

[Abe Linkman]

77. No Blue Moon & No Cell Phone Calls From B.Olson to Teddy

The claims about Mrs. Olson supposedly calling Teddy at his office in the Justice department are a fabrication designed to buttress the official version story of what happened on 9/11.

You can dance around, try to change the subject, try to shift the burden off your shoulders to prove your fantastical fairy tale, and all the rest. But, it won't make it bit of difference, because the story is false, so you cannot produce even the slightest bit of proof.

So, jump and dance all you want to, but I know, just as well as you do, that your story is a fariy tale. The only thing interesting might be knowing why you are doing what you are doing. And, who is putting you up to it. Are you related to Ted?

[RH]

78. Jumping and dancing

:eyes:

You too chum.

More than a touch of projection going on here, I think.

I was and am feeling perfectly calm about it.

So jump and dance all YOU want to, or repeat yourself another hundred times over. It will only prove that all that YOU can hope to do is to bore everybody to death.

What you have is your allegation but nothing to prove it.

Or what sort of bet are you perhaps prepared to lay against the chance that Ted Olsen's word will stand good?

And what in these respects, by the way, would precisely be your locus standi?

[Abe Linkman]

79. You've failed. Go home.

You have not provided one single shred of evidence to back your claim and you are beginning to sound foolish in your child-like efforts to evade your obligation to back up your claims.

As you well know, there have been numerous articles debunking Ted Olson's lies. Even with all of your resources, the only thing you can say, over and over, is that a proven liar, right-wing extremist, and longtime heavy drinker and womanizer, Ted Olson says it, so we should believe it, because he said it.

Repeating a Big Lie isn't enough here. Too many smart people who can see through what you're trying to do. (not that you have to be very smart to see through the fairy tale you're trying to sell here)

[RH]

80. Poor comprehension.

:eyes:

I never made any claim.

I stated no preference except for jurisprudence.

You have some problem with jurispridence?

[Abe Linkman]

81. You mean you now realize that Ted fooled you, too?

That is good news, indeed. Especially, coming from someone in your situation. But, whatever made you see the light isn't as important as your willingness to accept the most fundamental precepts of Western jurisprudence: the requirement of evidentiary proof to substantiate a claim.

I doubt the public will ever know the circumstances that resulted in Ted's excellent lie; but that's OK. The important thing to know is that it is nothing more than a fabrication, designed to buttress the rest of the official version of events that happened on 9/11.

Do you also believe it was a MIHOP operation? By definition, LIHOP IS MIHOP. Can't have one without the other, you know.

Cheers, and congratulations for coming around.

[RH]

82. Oh Dear.

What if anything would "Innocent until proved guilty" mean to you?

[Abe Linkman]

83. Why are you dodging, dancing, and trying to change the subject?

What planet are you from, RH? Do you deny that Ted Olson hasn't provided a shred of proof to back up his claim? Do you admit that you have no evidence to back up Ted's claim? Do you have any other motivation for being here, other than seeking the truth? Do you believe it's possible that Ted doesn't believe what he said? Do you think it's fair for the government to leave it up to an average citizen like yourself to try to make the case for Ted's fairy tale?

You must be very uncomfortable trying to prove something that didn't happen.

[RH]

84. uncomfortable?

Not at all uncomfortable. I do not understand this talk of dodging and dancing.

:boring:

It falls to an accuser, not a defender to produce evidence. You have simply not convinced me that the Olsen phone calls did not take place and you are not going to convince me by repeating yourself or being abusive about it.

In the mean time then my main discomfort is in having spent a lot of time chasing down so called "facts" regurgitated over and over on the internet albeit that they turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Not so long ago I heard that a plane could not possibly have hit the Pentagon because if so the lamp poles would have been hit.

I heard a lot to the effect that the alleged arab suspects were not aboard the aircraft and then again to my mind it turns out to be an untenable fantasy.

Phone records of the Olsen calls presumably do exist. I do not know that the records were never produced anywhere. I do not see why such records ever should have been displayed. Where is the story in that?
Where was the demand for that?

An absense of evidence on the internet proves nothing. The internet is not omnipotent. Somebody must have seen some records. Did you read the transcript of the Hamburg trial? There are lots of records around to be seen that nobody's been talking about because they didn't even bother to look.

Whether or not Olsen correctly prefers to recall the whole truth and nothing but the truth is another matter but I do not see why such a risk as the faking of phone calls would ever have had to be taken. It would make no sense for him to involve himself deliberately with the scene of the crime. A conspirator would usually take care to prepare as much as an alibi as possible, to let the henchmen do the dirty work.

[Abe Linkman]

85. Ted's excellent conspiracy

"A conspirator would usually take care to prepare as much as an alibi as possible, to let the henchmen do the dirty work."

Right. Ted knew he wouldn't have to substantiate his fairy tale and he knew he wouldn't even have to answer any questions about it.

You've had the opportunity to examine some of the arguments for why Ted's story is absurdly implausible and impossible. On the other hand, you haven't provided even the slightest evidence to back up your story.

It is YOUR obligation to prove your claim; not mine. Ted Olson is your only source for the fairy tale you are trying to sell here. And, Ted Olson's claims aren't evidence. Furthermore, his veracity was impeached a long time ago.

Do you have a hidden agenda here? Just wondering. Otherwise, it seems odd that you would not want to know more facts about something so crucial in understanding what actually happened on 9/11. Why aren't you interested in knowing the true facts? What makes you think that the Government wouldn't release any proof if they had it? Is it because whenever bush lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, the evidence he and his cronies released turned out to be bogus?

[RH]

86. Try again.

:eyes:

I had already said that I did not have a claim.


I

do

not

have

a

claim.


Which of those words do you have so much of a problem with?

The story I have is the story from the person best placed to tell it, Ted Olsen.

Ted Olsen did have to answer questions about it. He was not impeached. His office continues. He is entitled to be believed until and unless proved wrong.

According, I believe, to the usual laws and customs of the United States of Amersica, the point would therefore be very much to do with wanting to know facts, the usually appropriate term being "due process", ergo 'evidence', then 'argument', then 'verdict', not 'verdict', then 'argument', then 'evidence'.

[Abe Linkman]

87. Please provide proof of when Olson was questioned about it.

"Ted Olsen did have to answer questions about it."

Ted gave several self-serving, vague, contradictory, illogical, and completely fantastical stories, but like the rest of those who tout the official story ("a man in a cave did it"), Ted has never provided a shred of proof, and he sure won't answer any questions.

Have you talked to him? Do you consider him less, or more honest than Bunnypants?

Why do you personally (I assume you're not here in any "official" capacity - but I don't know that for sure) feel it isn't necessary to have proof of such a crucial claim; in light of the fact that this Administration has lied to the whole world about so many things?

[RH]

89. So what's the hang up?

Ted Olsen answered questions on TV.

I am not in a position to talk to him.

"self-serving, vague, contradictory, illogical, and completely fantastical stories"?

So what else is new in politics?

:eyes:

Phone records presumably exist so get them.

What stops you?

Does the Freedom of Information Act not apply?

Did you read up about the Hamburg trial?

[reorg]

88. witnesses are not "entitled" to be believed

> The story I have is the story from the person best placed to tell it, Ted Olsen.<

I'm not sure there is much of a story here. Basically, what he said is someone claiming to be his wife called twice and told him of the hijacking - which implicitly sort of "proves" that there were hijackers on the plane, nothing else.

What we are told of the details of the calls is either insignificant, or is reported in a vague, sometimes contradictory and unreliable manner.


>Ted Olsen did have to answer questions about it. He was not impeached. His office continues. He is entitled to be believed until and unless proved wrong.<

Well, he is not "accused" of anything as far as I know. Nobody has claimed he had "foreknowlegde". Nobody said he made sure his wife booked this particular flight. From the strange way he tells his story, however, some people draw the conclusion that he is not a reliable witness. That is what WE are entitled of.

Maybe someone called, but not his wife (speaking calmly, "or at least as calm as was possible in this situation", but probably hasty, with a suppressed voice). Maybe he wasn't called but thought it prudent to report such a call, assuming - or having been informed - that a certain plan was being carried out. Whatever. Given that he has been a very reliable and very high profile team player for 20-30 years in some circles, it would seem rash and unjustifiable to rule out anything.

Your claim that records of these calls certainly exist somewhere is meaningless as long as nobody looks for them. And why would anyone do that? It is only kooks, after all, who question their existence ... :-)

I for one would be completely satisfied if someone could come foreward with irrefutable proof or at least a convincing claim that it is possible to make (two consecutive) cell phone calls from a plane going 500 mph or so.

[RH]

90. Reliable?

No, Ted Olsen would not in this instance be an especially reliable witness. People are not usually at their best immediately after the death of close relative, but would he be so confused as to who he spoke to? I would not have thought so. He is still entitled to be believed, that being the natural corollory of "innocent until proved guilty".

Why would anyone look for records is then the stupidest question yet to have arisen.

Would that be as if Ted Olsen never had an enemy?

Would that be as if an enemy of some sort would not long since have been in reach of the same records?

Show us that the records were destroyed, or something to a similar effect and then you'll have a story.

The Olsen calls were said to be airphone calls, not cell phonme calls.

[Abe Linkman]

91. RH - You're a comedian

Ted Olson is about as reliable as bush, rice (R-Chevron), powell (R-My lai coverup), rumsfeld (R-Saddam) amd Karl "Goebbels" Rove.

You have no one to blame except yourself for being in the position of being unable to prove something that didn't happen.

Why you would want to put yourself in that situation is what I don't understand. You're just another amateur with a strong interest in learning the truth about 9/11, right. That's all, isn't it?

[reorg]

92. questionable evidence, again

> ... would he be so confused as to who he spoke to? I would not have thought so.<

Maybe unlikely, but possible, given the circumstances.


>He is still entitled to be believed, that being the natural corollory of "innocent until proved guilty".<

No, sorry, this is complete nonsense. Even in court, witness testimony is not "to be believed until proven false". It may just as well be dismissed as unreliable and inconsistent.


>Why would anyone look for records is then the stupidest question yet to have arisen. ...<

Depends on where you have to look. My ISDN phone at work records incoming calls when I choose this option. But only a limited number, and then each new call deletes the oldest record in the store. In this way, any such record will have vanished into oblivion after a few days.


>The Olsen calls were said to be airphone calls, not cell phonme calls.<

Well, I thought we had cleared this up already. The seat phone claim in the Telegraph's hagiography of Ms. Olson is accompanied by the most dubious collect call claim ... and flat out contradicted by CNN who consistently reported cell phone calls. I put my money on CNN - as former employer of Barbara Olson they are closer to the source and probably more reliable. In the LKL interview three months after the event Mr. Olson also mentions cell phones, not seat phones.

There are BTW even more picturesqe accounts than that in the Telegraph: I found one article which places Ms. Olson in the toilet, making "at least 10 attempts" to get through to the Justice Department until she finally succeeds (in this case - again - with a cell phone)...

[RH]

93. Possibility.

No testimony may "just as well" be dismissed as unreliable and inconsistent. There is nothing arbitrary about the correct procedure and presumption. Your starting pont must be that a witness on oath speaks in good faith.

Perhaps there was a mixture of cell phone calls and airphone calls. What would you do if you'd failed to get through? A sensible attempt would be to contact a third party to get a message through indirectly.

[reorg]

94. nothing arbitrary? of course not

>No testimony may "just as well" be dismissed as unreliable and inconsistent. There is nothing arbitrary about the correct procedure and presumption. Your starting pont must be that a witness on oath speaks in good faith.<

And then you try to establish whether his account is reliable, e. g. by questioning him about minor details. "Why did you feel relieved when she called" may be one such question. If the witness then gives different answers at different points in time, it is only prudent to assume that he is thoroughly confused or may be lying.

Another test of his reliability is comparing the wording of his various accounts. If he, e. g., never quotes his wife's first words on the phone verbatim (lack of authenticity and detail, see above), even says he cannot remember exactly what was said at which point in time, but then uses always the same phrase to describe the beginning of their conversation: "she told me they were herded back into the plane", a prudent interviewer must not rule out the possibility that he is trying to stick to certain talking points.



>Perhaps there was a mixture of cell phone calls and airphone calls. What would you do if you'd failed to get through? A sensible attempt would be to contact a third party to get a message through indirectly.<

You seem prone to all kinds of speculation with respect to the medium of those calls.

Incoming calls were probably not recorded, I assume (where I live, they are not, at least no longer than a few days).

There may be records of outgoing cell phone calls. The question is: whose phones were actually used? Probably very hard to establish. It is unlikely that investigators were interested in finding such records. Why would they? The public has not been made aware of such findings, if any. Questions regarding the authenticity of such calls were never raised in the media.

There may be records of outgoing airphone calls. To my knowledge, such records were never publicly mentioned.

On what legal basis could anyone request that they be produced? Who would have to produce them, the phone company Verizon or the FBI?

[RH]

95. prone

Yes, nowadays, the reality would seem to be more arbitrary than the theory. That terrifies me as much as anything else.

:scared:

It does not cause me so much anxiety that every detail of every phone call was not widely available. Post 9/11 there were an awful lot of issues to be covered and your average journalist only has the same number of hours to his day as anybody else.

If on the other hand the FBI do not have in their own possession a complete set of whatever phone records and some record of a serious attempt to reconstruct the course and content of all the calls, then something is most certainly wrong.

'Der Spiegel' got hold of some information passed from the FBI to the German Police.

I don't know that there needs to be any special legal basis to demand information but there will be limits to what is available. Observing from the UK I am not familiar with every aspect of US law.

What is clear is an immediate need to organise seriously instead of gossiping endlessly on internet message boards as if to expect somebody else to mop up the mess.

[Abe Linkman]

96. Alice In Wonderland logic

"If on the other hand the FBI do not have in their own possession a complete set of whatever phone records and some record of a serious attempt to reconstruct the course and content of all the calls, then something is most certainly wrong."

Next, this gentleman will tell us that even though there is no reason why we should believe that the FBI has such records, we should simply stop suggesting that the calls weren't made, because the mere fact that we don't know doesn't mean the FBI doesn't have records in their possession. See?

When you're trying to prove something that didn't happen, sometimes you just have to use Alice In Wonderland logic, and hope it fools people.

[RH]

97. Alice In Wonderland logic

:eyes:

and it is perfectly logical, is it, to suppose that because you have not seen something, it does not exist?

as for instance did Thierry Meyssan, i.e. "without damaging the streetlamps on the highway which borders the Pentagon parking lot, nor hitting them, not even by the blast caused by its air displacement"?

The FIB is a 'Bureau of Investigation'.

"Investigation".

Get it?

[Abe Linkman]

98. RH - Have you found any proof yet?

You are in the unenviable position of trying to get people to believe something that didn't happen. All of the theories and conjectures that you and your kind have offered in an attempt to prove a negative, were debunked a long time ago.

If you could just cite some proof, it would be one thing. But, you can't. All you can do is try to deflect attention away from the truth, and suggest that anyone who doesn't believe a liar has some kind of problem.

Your problem is that you can't accept the truth because then your whole house of cards would collapse. So, you must cling to the absurd fiction that Mrs. Olson called her lying husband Ted (maybe using tin cans and string?) from FL 77.

Tell you what; I'll concede that this may be the first thing you were wrong about, since 9/11. Would that make you feel better?

[RH]

99. No.

You, not I are in the unenviable position of trying to get people to believe that something didn't happen.

[Abe Linkman]

100. You say they happened, but you don't have any facts, RH

You can't back up your claims. Why should anyone believe YOU?
Were you in Ted's office? Do you even live in Washington?
Were you on FL 77? Is that how you know Barbara made phone calls?

You want us to believe that there were phone calls made from FL 77; but extensive analysis of the only claims of such, have all been thoroughly debunked. Unless you have some evidence, you're selling voodoo, Mr. Harvey. Notice that no one here is buying. Have you noticed that?
Did a voice come to you in the night and reveal information to you that no one else on Earth knows? The only other person who claims similar knowledge is a man who works for the Government (U.S. government, that is) and has publicly stated that the Government lies to the public.

Why should we believe Ted Olson, or you? Unless you can produce some evidence to back your fairy tale, that's all it is.

[RH]

101. Claim?

I had already said that I did not have a claim.

:eyes:

Remember?

I

do

not

have

a

claim.


Which of those words do you have so much of a problem with?

[Abe Linkman]

102. Proof/ evidence/ supporting facts for your loony idea about the Olsons.

Your conspiracy theories about the Olsons are as loony as the ones about
Osama plotting the whole thing from a cave somewhere in E. Speelunkistan.

[RH]

103. No.

:eyes:

I proposed no conspiracy theory.

You did.

[Abe Linkman]

104. You theory about the Olsons is loony

What you are trying to sell is one of the craziest 9/11 notions of all.

Why don't you just acknowledge that it is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy? If Mrs. Olson had made any calls, the Government would have rushed to provide proof of them.

Not being willing to acknowledge the obvious makes you sound silly.

[RH]

105. I sell nothing.

the craziest 9/11 notions of all:
"the only plane that had passengers on it was FL 93"

Why don't you just acknowledge that it is nothing more than a paranoid fantasy?

Your projections are beyond a joke.

Psychotic.

By bye.

:kick:

[Abe Linkman]

106. Now, you're trying to sell another loony idea. Slow down.

"the only plane that had passengers on it was FL 93"

Mr. Harvey, please.
All of the flights had passengers on them when they departed from the various airports where their flights originated. I don't think anyone disputes that point except you. You are flailing about because no one believes your story about Barbara Olson calling her husband from FL 77.
So now, you're trying to change the subject. What you should be doing is questioning the likelihood of the official story put out by the Government about what really happened on 9/11.

Who taught you logic?